SYLVIA F. GUILLEN ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
RUTH S. KITCHING ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This case concerns the interpretation of the term "survivors" under Florida's Wrongful Death Act. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision that siblings who were not dependent on the decedent for support did not qualify as "survivors" under the Act.
No, the trial court correctly interpreted the term "survivors" to require actual dependency. Therefore, the siblings who were not dependent on the decedent do not qualify as survivors under the Act.
[1] A "survivor" under the Florida Wrongful Death Act must be a blood relative who is actually, though not necessarily wholly, dependent on the decedent for support or servic…
[2] Dependency connotes one who looks to another for aid or support, relies upon same, and would not be able to sustain himself without such aid or support.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“That notwithstanding the liberal construction to be applied in accordance with Florida Statutes 768.17, this Court construes a blood relative, partly or wholly dependent on a decedent for support or services, to require actual dependency, though same may be partial, in order to qualify as a ‘survivor’ under the ‘Florida Wrongful Death Act’, and the word ‘dependent’ connotes one who looks to another for aid or support, relies upon same, and one who would not be able to sustain himself without such aid or support, and the Plaintiff brother, Hector Guillen, and the Plaintiff sister, Sylvia F. Guillen, do not qualify as ‘survivors’ as a matter of law under the facts in this cause.”
This quote details the trial court's interpretation of 'survivors' and 'dependent' under the Wrongful Death Act, which the appellate court found to be correct.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellants, Hector and Sylvia Guillen, were plaintiffs in a wrongful death action. They appealed a summary judgment granted to the appellees (defe…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Wrongful Death Act cases and more on FLexlaw
KEHOE, Judge.
Appellants, plaintiffs below, bring this appeal from a summary judgment dated July 31, 1975, entered by the trial court in favor of appellees, defendants below.
Appellants’ basic contention on appeal is that the trial court erred, in granting appellees’ motion for summary judgment against the claims of appellants Hector and Sylvia Guillen, because it misinterpreted the word “survivors” in Section 768.-18, Florida Statutes (1975). The trial court interpreted the word “survivors” as follows:
“That notwithstanding the liberal construction to be applied in accordance with Florida Statutes 768.17, this Court construes a blood relative, partly or wholly dependent on a decedent for support or services, to require actual dependency, though same may be partial, in order to qualify as a ‘survivor’ under the ‘Florida Wrongful Death Act’, and the word ‘dependent’ connotes one who looks to another for aid or support, relies upon same, and one who would not be able to sustain himself without such aid or support, and the Plaintiff brother, Hector Guillen, and the Plaintiff sister, Sylvia F. Guillen, do not qualify as ‘survivors’ as a matter of law under the facts in this cause.”
In our opinion, this was a correct interpretation. See Duval v. Hunt, 34 Fla. 85, 15 So. 876 (1894), and Burgh v. Carroll, 217 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969).
Having determined that Hector and Sylvia Guillen were not survivors under the Florida Wrongful Death Act, the trial court also found that there was no genuine issue of any material fact and, accordingly, entered the order granting appellees’ motion for summary judgment. After a careful review of the record, we have concluded that the order was properly entered; therefore, it is affirmed. See, e. g., Wesley Construction Co. v. Lane, 323 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Ham v. Heintzelman’s Ford, Inc., 256 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); Turner Produce Co. v. Lake Shore Growers Coop. Ass’n, 217 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969), and Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.510.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Duval v. Hunt, 34 Fla. 85 (Fla. 1894)
- HAM v. Heintzeliman's Ford, Inc., 256 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Turner Produce Co., Inc. v. Lake Shore Growers Coop. Ass'n, 217 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)
- Huesman v. Huesman, 323 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Burgh v. Carroll, 217 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)